11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

without vegetation at zero years; at five years, there will be some growth; and at 15 years, there will be more growth. The growth rates and speeds will be dependent upon the types of species chosen and other factors. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Martin Inderbitzen, 4218 Casterson Court, on behalf of the applicant, wished to state that they had read and reviewed the staff report, the conditions of approval, the EIR, and other supporting documents for this project. He indicated that they were in agreement with the staff's conditions of approval as well as with the recommendation for certification of the EIR. He wanted to be careful about the modification of Condition No. 58.d. requiring measurement of the buffer from the real property line back. He believed they had the same interest as Commissioner O'Connor stated, that they should not be led to believe that there was no fuel management requirement or wildland buffer requirement between the structure and the real property line if taken from the property line as now proposed. He described the buffer line, which gained additional distance for the buffer. He noted that their proposed tree mitigation plan for on-lot mitigation of trees was meant to prevent the kind of fires the Fire Chief spoke of in which the fire spread from canopy to canopy and then to the structure itself. He agreed that there should be the maximum protection for the structures. Allen Roberts, 16 Grey Eagle Court, noted that he also owned the property at 29 Grey Eagle Court, which was immediately adjacent to the subject site. He displayed a chart from the Oak Grove Landscape and Open Space Plan as well as the area containing the project site. He expressed concern about the proposed Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) and noted that they knew what the mail kiosk for the project would look like, but that they did not know what the EVA would look like. He noted that the EVA was a required mitigation item in the EIR. He noted that the EVA was shown on the drawing, although there was no easement there. He had pointed out a year ago that the existing easement granted to the City went straight up with an existing grade of 20 percent. He noted that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) stated that the maximum grade for any access road was 12 percent. When the Final EIR came out, there was a statement from the Fire Marshall that that was a mistake and that the maximum grade was 15 percent. He noted that a 15-19-foot deep trench would be put through his property and that the latest plan communicated by staff indicated that a 20-percent grade was acceptable because a fire truck would be able to take a running start at the hill to make it to the top. He noted that with the recent news of wildland fires, this did not make sense to him. He had not seen a drawing of how it would be built and did not know how the EIR could be certified until this important detail was resolved. Mr. Roberts noted that the staff report referred to his house, and he had tried to build a house on his site for seven. years; the last four years had been tied up because of Oak Grove. His proposed house site was on the top of the hill. He noted that the staff questioned HOA approval of his home and that it was viewable from I-580; he objected to that determination because Oak Grove would be viewable from I-580 as well. He noted that he had been required to do a visual study when he took his house proposal to City Council to show the maximum house size proposed for the lot for the maximum height of the structure. He noted that the appropriate lenses were used: A 50-mm lens was used for the nearby areas, and a 300-mm telephoto was used from the West EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 27, 2007 Page 2 of 17